Or not. One of my pet peeves about some LDS members is their assumed need to tell others how to live their lives.
I think it's more comparing the way you live with the counsel of the scriptures and rejecting some of your ways. And then there is anger/guilt/paranoia on your part when we turn down your generous offer of a beer. Feel free to proceed as normal.
Or not. One of my pet peeves about some LDS members is their assumed need to tell others how to live their lives.
I think it's more comparing the way you live with the counsel of the scriptures and rejecting some of your ways. Feel free to proceed as normal.
But what drives one person to judge another member and tell them how "they" should live? What business is it of theirs? Seems that most LDSers have enough on their plate to worry about everybody else too!
Or not. One of my pet peeves about some LDS members is their assumed need to tell others how to live their lives.
And then there is anger/guilt/paranoia on your part when we turn down your generous offer of a beer.
(guess that was edited)...I don't know what you're referring to here. Why would anybody feel paranoid or guilty when another turned down their beer offer?
(guess that was edited)...I don't know what you're referring to here.
Just adding friendly example.
Why would anybody feel paranoid or guilty when another turned down their beer offer?
I don't know. It's just my perception to counter your perception.
But what drives one person to judge another member and tell them how "they" should live?
I just don't see many (none in fact) LDS doing that.
What business is it of theirs?
What's the problem with an organization giving it's members counsel and requiring standards for membership? You're welcome not to join if you don't want to. Nobody is telling you how to live.
Seems that most LDSers have enough on their plate to worry about everybody else too!
Indeed. That's why I could care less about how you live your life unless it infringes on my rights, the rights of others, or tries to establish rights that have no compelling reason to exist.
harmony wrote: That's because they're just men and they don't talk to God directly anymore than anyone else does. They see through a dark glass just like the rest of us.
You might want to talk to the bishop about that on your next temple recommend interview when you get to Question #2.
Or not. One of my pet peeves about some LDS members is their assumed need to tell others how to live their lives.
It is all about consistency. Harmony has said she has a temple recommend. She presents herself here as a believing, temple attending LDS. So what she says is to be considered as a believing member.
Yet on more than one occasion she has expressed opinions which are contrary to that of what is expected of temple attending members. She should just be consistent. If she says she has a temple recommend, she has told her bishop that she sustains the prophet as the head of the Church on earth who is the only one who holds the keys of the kingdom. Then is she says on the board that the prophet does not receive revelation and different from any other person, there is an inconsistency.
She should be willing to say which she believes. Otherwise, it is what is called "talking about of both sides of your mouth." No one is trying to tell her how to live. Just asking her to be upfront with us.
charity wrote:It is all about consistency. Harmony has said she has a temple recommend. She presents herself here as a believing, temple attending LDS. So what she says is to be considered as a believing member.
Yet on more than one occasion she has expressed opinions which are contrary to that of what is expected of temple attending members. She should just be consistent. If she says she has a temple recommend, she has told her bishop that she sustains the prophet as the head of the Church on earth who is the only one who holds the keys of the kingdom. Then is she says on the board that the prophet does not receive revelation and different from any other person, there is an inconsistency.
She should be willing to say which she believes. Otherwise, it is what is called "talking about of both sides of your mouth." No one is trying to tell her how to live. Just asking her to be upfront with us.
I fail to see how the one precludes the other.
Given the verbiage you quoted there. . . Harmony can believe and state that the prophets are demonic rabbits that sacrifice chickens and still sustain them as the head of the church that has a keychain with more keys than anyone else.
Most of the people here tend to use this little thing we call "logic". I'd suggest brushing up on it before trying to bull-rush people over here.
But what drives one person to judge another member and tell them how "they" should live?
I just don't see many (none in fact) LDS doing that.
Charity just did it. I assume she's LDS.
What business is it of theirs?
What's the problem with an organization giving it's members counsel and requiring standards for membership? You're welcome not to join if you don't want to. Nobody is telling you how to live.
The organization, yes (if one chooses to subscribe to it's rules of membership)...but what we saw here was what I have seen much in the church -- one member (Charity) telling another (Harmony) what she should do.
Seems that most LDSers have enough on their plate to worry about everybody else too!
Indeed. That's why I could care less about how you live your life unless it infringes on my rights, the rights of others, or tries to establish rights that have no compelling reason to exist
harmony wrote: That's because they're just men and they don't talk to God directly anymore than anyone else does. They see through a dark glass just like the rest of us.
You might want to talk to the bishop about that on your next temple recommend interview when you get to Question #2.
Or not. One of my pet peeves about some LDS members is their assumed need to tell others how to live their lives.
It is all about consistency. Harmony has said she has a temple recommend. She presents herself here as a believing, temple attending LDS. So what she says is to be considered as a believing member.
Yet on more than one occasion she has expressed opinions which are contrary to that of what is expected of temple attending members. She should just be consistent. If she says she has a temple recommend, she has told her bishop that she sustains the prophet as the head of the Church on earth who is the only one who holds the keys of the kingdom. Then is she says on the board that the prophet does not receive revelation and different from any other person, there is an inconsistency.
She should be willing to say which she believes. Otherwise, it is what is called "talking about of both sides of your mouth." No one is trying to tell her how to live. Just asking her to be upfront with us.
You're missing the point. What business is it of yours how she lives...whether she interprets and lives the rules the same way you do? Again, I see it frequently in the church -- you have just demonstrated it, and BCSpace says he never sees it. I'm an eye doc, and I think y'all need to come see me so I can help you see better!
BishopRic wrote: You're missing the point. What business is it of yours how she lives...whether she interprets and lives the rules the same way you do? Again, I see it frequently in the church -- you have just demonstrated it, and BCSpace says he never sees it. I'm an eye doc, and I think y'all need to come see me so I can help you see better!
The point is that people make claims to legitimacy so their opinions will carry weight. Remember Palmer with his "Insiders's View.. ." book. He used the word insider so people would think he really knew what he was talking about.
Harmony says she is a temple attending LDS. She is claiming a sort of "insider" status. People will look at her posts and make judgements about her posts based on that. Her claim to speak on any LDS doctrine or practice is given more weight. If that is not a clear statement of her position, then it is not being upfront.
She can live her life anyway she choses, which she is obviously doing. I don't know her. I don't know where she lives. I don't say anything to her ward members. All she is is an anonymous poaster on board critical of LDS.
BishopRic wrote:One of those laws is honesty. Well, somebody along the way is not being honest! I think it's hard for an honest observer to read the words of the many LDS prophets and apostles quoted in so many articles and websites and claim they did not believe that all the Native Americans were not Lamanites. If they knew otherwise, they were fooling their audiences. It's quite obvious that since science has been demonstrating a different ancestry to the colonizers of the Americas, the defenders are backtracking and getting creative.
.
The unicycle is the only bicycle that requires backpedaling to remain upright. Something here shares this characteristic.....hmmmm, its on the tip of my tongue.
I don't expect to see same-sex marriage in Utah within my lifetime. - Scott Lloyd, Oct 23 2013